Poetry, prose, metre, stuff, to keep the other thread clean

[Tsotha]

You're right, I thought I did respond directly to you but was answering others.

Thank your for the answers and examples. I understand your view a little better, now.

 

[bogusagain]

But, no matter, I think this thread is shot.

When more people write poetry than read it and very few people read it, poetry is as good as shot, which was my whole point about engaging a potential readership. At the moment, if you believe the numbers, poetry is like an endangered species that will soon be below the numbers required to cling to life. (apart from the Lit mainstream etc. writing doggeral)

I don't know about the USA but certainly in western Europe, bearly a poetry book would exist if it wasn't some sort of subsidy, whether philanthropic, arts subsidy or academic press. Like Opera, it is preserved for the public through direct and indirect state funds. In a situation like that, poets arguing the toss that they know what good poetry is, while effectively saying the reading public hasn't a clue, poets are like giant pandas who are too fussy about what other panda they have sex with.

Apparently, there are going to be less poetry books published this year because of economic cuts and a stagnant economy. There wasn't that many being published in the first place. I am sure self publishing is booming but that is usually for family and friends and who really browses through self published poetry books?

This shouldn't be an esoteric argument, it should be about why people don't read poetry, not sneering at the potential customers for going elsewhere.

 

[Tsotha]

When more people write poetry than read it and very few people read it, poetry is as good as shot, which was my whole point about engaging a potential readership. At the moment, if you believe the numbers, poetry is like an endangered species that will soon be below the numbers required to cling to life. (apart from the Lit mainstream etc. writing doggeral)

I don't know about the USA but certainly in western Europe, bearly a poetry book would exist if it wasn't some sort of subsidy, whether philanthropic, arts subsidy or academic press. Like Opera, it is preserved for the public through direct and indirect state funds. In a situation like that, poets arguing the toss that they know what good poetry is, while effectively saying the reading public hasn't a clue, poets are like giant pandas who are too fussy about what other panda they have sex with.

Apparently, there are going to be less poetry books published this year because of economic cuts and a stagnant economy. There wasn't that many being published in the first place. I am sure self publishing is booming but that is usually for family and friends and who really browses through self published poetry books?

This shouldn't be an esoteric argument, it should be about why people don't read poetry, not sneering at the potential customers for going elsewhere.

"Endangered panda"?

Unless the poetry sites' servers catch on fire and the people writing "doggerel" all have sudden simultaneous seizures, there is no risk of poetry vanishing. What is in risk of vanishing is the traditional way of selling the "product".

By the way, how can you say it's all "doggerel"? Have you read all of it? Or maybe it's an elitist impulse to dismiss the healthy online communities in favor of the moribund traditional publishing deal? What is it about words printed in dead trees that makes it special? Why do you measure the success of poetry by the number of physical books being sold in an age where everything happens online?

If anything, the failure is in marketing the "product" in the internet age. Nothing uncommon, considering the difficulties faced by much more massive industries in the recent past (e.g., music, cinema, etc.).

Poetry slipped through the cracks and is now a niche, because nobody cares enough about the minuscule profit to be made in it. Meanwhile, the people who care are writing "doggerel". And if out of this free-for-all nobody manages to rise, maybe there is nothing so special about the writings of some, since people cannot be convinced of it.

 

[Tsotha]

I know poetry by a convergence of intention (poet) and recognition (reader). This I call resonance.

The qualities of poetry do not define it, they do not accept or reject anything from its fold. Rather, what is recognized as "poetry" often shares certain traits.

Repetition, sounds, symbols — or the complete lack of them — these are only what the reader makes of them. Everything is a tool toward the purpose of creating poetry; no tool is poetry, in itself. The experience is in the mind, not in the poem.

...that's all I have for now.

 

[todski28]

I know poetry by a convergence of intention (poet) and recognition (reader). This I call resonance.

The qualities of poetry do not define it, they do not accept or reject anything from its fold. Rather, what is recognized as "poetry" often shares certain traits.

Repetition, sounds, symbols — or the complete lack of them — these are only what the reader makes of them. Everything is a tool toward the purpose of creating poetry; no tool is poetry, in itself. The experience is in the mind, not in the poem.

...that's all I have for now.

Hmmmm all of that and this seems to be where my head goes.

 

[bogusagain]

I know poetry by a convergence of intention (poet) and recognition (reader). This I call resonance.

The qualities of poetry do not define it, they do not accept or reject anything from its fold. Rather, what is recognized as "poetry" often shares certain traits.

Repetition, sounds, symbols — or the complete lack of them — these are only what the reader makes of them. Everything is a tool toward the purpose of creating poetry; no tool is poetry, in itself. The experience is in the mind, not in the poem.

...that's all I have for now.

And I understood every word of that. It sounds like a lot of poetry. It doesn't communicate anything, it just sounds like the poet knows what poetry is.

 

[Epmd607]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parataxis
looks like it can be easily transferred.
does it really rely on subordinating conjunctions (and) more than verse?

I think paratactic tactics were that movie director type in and out camera movements, juxtaposing symbols that you were talking about here and elsewhere. There is parataxis in novels, I don't think it's all that common though. The reason I almost broke character and threw out a pseudo-imho is because I might have to find 100 popular 'prose poems' from the Yale Series awards and find the ratio of subordinators per line when compared to my hundred favorite poems. See if there's a difference before deciding if it even matters.

 

[Epmd607]

Where we don't agree is possibly that I see most of this thread as pretentious nonsense and a detailed discussion of form and structure but NOT substance.

I consider the mechanics and symbolism of any poem to be far less important than the content. A limerick or clerihew can contain as much insight as a finely wrought sonnet, and perhaps even more.

The message is being lost in the analysis of the method of delivery.

As far as I know this thread began because some of us were curious whether form, mechanics and structure were as important as anything else to what the substance of poetry is. Prose poetry is pretty popular, I don't know that anyone disagrees with that.

Does this popular method take away from the substance of poetry by substituting in the tools of prose? Most threads here deal with the substance of symbol, there's no reason why there can't be a sister thread to the thread of forms without fellow 'poets' deriding its existence once per page.

I could have focused on how the mechanics of confessionalism likely eroded the waning popular interest in poetry the second half of the last century. There wasn't much of an audience left when prose poetry became popular because of it.

 

[bogusagain]

I could have focused on how the mechanics of confessionalism likely eroded the waning popular interest in poetry the second half of the last century. There wasn't much of an audience left when prose poetry became popular because of it.

I doubt it was confessional poetry that eroded the popularity of poetry so much as modernism. Surely hysterical poets like Plath were popular. Post modernism, although a cynical and destructive style, does bring entertainment value back to poetry. In fact, I see the knowingness of what 1201 does as highly entertaining post modernism.

 

[oggbashan]

mechanics and symbolism are part of the content

Again I have to disagree. They are part of the tools for delivery of the content.

If a poet has nothing meaningful to say, the mechanics and symbolism are useless.

I care about poetry. I read poetry. I don't claim to write poetry, even if I have several submissions labelled 'Poetry'.

For me, the form and structure of a poem can be important as the medium for expressing the ideas in the poem, but if the ideas are too obscure, too esoteric, too contrived - then my view is that the poem has failed.

I see the various mechanics of poetry as being comparable to the choices available to an artist. The artist can choose to express the idea as a painting (various media), a sculpture, a light effect or combine various forms, but if the completed work conveys nothing, then the medium is irrelevant.

A few years ago I persuaded our local festival committee to stage a Pavement Poetry event. Visitors were asked to write a poem on the spot, and their words were written in waterproof chalk on a protected area of pavement. Most were limericks but there were some very interesting forms as well. In five days we had over 500 poems entered and had to extend the protected area to three times the original size.

The following year we had a visiting performance poet conducting a masterclass in writing and delivering poetry. That was less successful because potential poets were too shy to stand on stage and read their work.

But what both events showed is that, at least locally, there is an audience for poetry, a significant number of people who can write extempore poetry, and some of their work is worth reproducing for a wider audience.

How can poets get their work to a wider audience? That is a larger question than the forms and structure of poems.

 

[twelveoone]

Again I have to disagree. They are part of the tools for delivery of the content.

If a poet has nothing meaningful to say, the mechanics and symbolism are useless.

I care about poetry. I read poetry. I don't claim to write poetry, even if I have several submissions labelled 'Poetry'.

this may be a fine line arguement, in other words, if we disagee, I don't think it is by much.
If a poet has something meaningful (interesting?, entertaining?), the mechanics and the symbolism are part of the content.

"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country 'tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

e. e. cummings

 

[twelveoone]

I think paratactic tactics were that movie director type in and out camera movements, juxtaposing symbols that you were talking about here and elsewhere. There is parataxis in novels, I don't think it's all that common though. The reason I almost broke character and threw out a pseudo-imho is because I might have to find 100 popular 'prose poems' from the Yale Series awards and find the ratio of subordinators per line when compared to my hundred favorite poems. See if there's a difference before deciding if it even matters.

point taken, but my view is it is more of an over reliance, and like everything else, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.
I think Lao tzu said it better, but I'm not looking to start my own religion.
Come to think of it, neither was he.

 

[twelveoone]

I doubt it was confessional poetry that eroded the popularity of poetry so much as modernism. Surely hysterical poets like Plath were popular. Post modernism, although a cynical and destructive style, does bring entertainment value back to poetry. In fact, I see the knowingness of what 1201 does as highly entertaining post modernism.

Actually it is based more on Kafka, whom most people think as absurdest and nightmarish. In my short and abridged literary journey, I came across a description of him reading his material. He was going for the laughs. Seinfeld a show about nothing is immensely popular. What I do is shift the primary use of tools, but basically (and I am the most critical bastard around when it comes to myself) if I don't find it funny, I know nobody else will. Unfortunately, I find a lot of stuff funny that nobody else does, like Kafka.

 

[bogusagain]

Actually it is based more on Kafka, whom most people think as absurdest and nightmarish. In my short and abridged literary journey, I came across a description of him reading his material. He was going for the laughs. Seinfeld a show about nothing is immensely popular. What I do is shift the primary use of tools, but basically (and I am the most critical bastard around when it comes to myself) if I don't find it funny, I know nobody else will. Unfortunately, I find a lot of stuff funny that nobody else does, like Kafka.

I'll go along with absurdist. I get the impression many people are wary and just don't often get you but I find you entertaining, wonderfully so when you are on form.

 

[Tsotha]

And I understood every word of that. It sounds like a lot of poetry. It doesn't communicate anything, it just sounds like the poet knows what poetry is.

You should work on reading comprehension, then.

 

[Matryoshka]

I'll go along with absurdist. I get the impression many people are wary and just don't often get you but I find you entertaining, wonderfully so when you are on form.

Ditto!

 

[Matryoshka]

Quote:
Originally Posted by twelveoone
mechanics and symbolism are part of the content

Again I have to disagree. They are part of the tools for delivery of the content.

If a poet has nothing meaningful to say, the mechanics and symbolism are useless.

I know I'm only responding to part of your full explanation but, if a poem has something meaningful to say and the poem has poor mechanics and symbolism, the importance of the meaning is be lost. Therefore those tools are an important part of the content...the pieces that make up the whole.
My second poem is a perfect example of this. My poem had great meaning (at least to me) but it was lost on others because it had poor mechanics and the symbolism fell short.

 

[oggbashan]

...
I know I'm only responding to part of your full explanation but, if a poem has something meaningful to say and the poem has poor mechanics and symbolism, the importance of the meaning is be lost. Therefore those tools are an important part of the content...the pieces that make up the whole.
My second poem is a perfect example of this. My poem had great meaning (at least to me) but it was lost on others because it had poor mechanics and the symbolism fell short.

I can understand that, but it doesn't change my view that the mechanics and symbolism are part of the delivery system, not the content.

I know that I often fail to deliver the full content and complexity of my intended story, but that is my incompetent use of the tools I use as an author. I know in my head, and in my mind's eye, what the content and the message should be, but I always fall short on the delivery. I think every artist does. We all want to create the perfect vision. Because we are aiming for perfection, we are bound to create something less than perfect - because we are human.

We could change the discussion into "How do I transmit the thought that is the basis of the poem/work?".

There are many methods, structures, tools etc. than can be used to transmit your conception to the reader. Choosing HOW to use those tools, and which tools, is interesting and ultimately personal.

If your talent is for formal structure and metre then you might choose them. If you are happier with a more free-form approach, then why not?

I become slightly concerned at the use of symbolism. Symbols that can have real meaning for you might have no resonance and even no meaning at all in a different country and culture. I'll give an example:

The Confederate Battle Flag, the Stars and Bars, appears in media all over the world. What does it mean to you? What does it mean to someone who raises that Flag? What does it mean on an item of clothing?

Even in the UK it has a multiplicity of meanings. Here are a few:

1. It is a symbol of the USA that can be treated more freely than the Stars and Stripes, because the Stars and Stripes should be regarded with respect. And that is all it is - American. It can appear on cans of Cola, on Popcorn buckets, on clothing - just as a tribute to, or association with, the USA.

2. It is a sign that the person flying/wearing it is a fan of Country and Western Music or Line Dancing.

3. It is a sign of rebellion against authority worn by Bikers. It could be replaced by the pirates' Skull and Crossbones and the meaning would be identical. (Or a Swastika)

4. It is racist. The person displaying it is signalling that black people should still be slaves, are inferior, and the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of White Supremacy.

5. The person flying/wearing it has seen it elsewhere and likes the design.

Obviously meaning 4 is meant to be offensive and for some it does cause real offence. But those who think that any of the other meanings are appropriate could be horrified if they knew that meaning 4 was possible.

That is just one symbol that can be confused. Literotica has an international audience. It is very difficult to use symbols (or even literary references) that will resonate with all readers.

My solution is to write in much more simplistic language than I would use if the intended audience was educated, literary Brits. I try to internationalise my stories. They are usually set in the UK, written in British English, but meant to be accessible to any competent English speaker anywhere in the world.

If I had used extensive symbolism that is personal to me, or peculiar to the UK, I would be confusing many readers.

 

[Matryoshka]

I can understand that, but it doesn't change my view that the mechanics and symbolism are part of the delivery system, not the content.

I know that I often fail to deliver the full content and complexity of my intended story, but that is my incompetent use of the tools I use as an author. I know in my head, and in my mind's eye, what the content and the message should be, but I always fall short on the delivery. I think every artist does. We all want to create the perfect vision. Because we are aiming for perfection, we are bound to create something less than perfect - because we are human.

We could change the discussion into "How do I transmit the thought that is the basis of the poem/work?".

There are many methods, structures, tools etc. than can be used to transmit your conception to the reader. Choosing HOW to use those tools, and which tools, is interesting and ultimately personal.

If your talent is for formal structure and metre then you might choose them. If you are happier with a more free-form approach, then why not?

I become slightly concerned at the use of symbolism. Symbols that can have real meaning for you might have no resonance and even no meaning at all in a different country and culture. I'll give an example:

The Confederate Battle Flag, the Stars and Bars, appears in media all over the world. What does it mean to you? What does it mean to someone who raises that Flag? What does it mean on an item of clothing?

Even in the UK it has a multiplicity of meanings. Here are a few:

1. It is a symbol of the USA that can be treated more freely than the Stars and Stripes, because the Stars and Stripes should be regarded with respect. And that is all it is - American. It can appear on cans of Cola, on Popcorn buckets, on clothing - just as a tribute to, or association with, the USA.

2. It is a sign that the person flying/wearing it is a fan of Country and Western Music or Line Dancing.

3. It is a sign of rebellion against authority worn by Bikers. It could be replaced by the pirates' Skull and Crossbones and the meaning would be identical. (Or a Swastika)

4. It is racist. The person displaying it is signalling that black people should still be slaves, are inferior, and the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of White Supremacy.

5. The person flying/wearing it has seen it elsewhere and likes the design.

Obviously meaning 4 is meant to be offensive and for some it does cause real offence. But those who think that any of the other meanings are appropriate could be horrified if they knew that meaning 4 was possible.

That is just one symbol that can be confused. Literotica has an international audience. It is very difficult to use symbols (or even literary references) that will resonate with all readers.

My solution is to write in much more simplistic language than I would use if the intended audience was educated, literary Brits. I try to internationalise my stories. They are usually set in the UK, written in British English, but meant to be accessible to any competent English speaker anywhere in the world.

If I had used extensive symbolism that is personal to me, or peculiar to the UK, I would be confusing many readers.

When I build a home I am using wood and glass. To fancy it up and give it atmosphere I use paint and decorations. Those are all part of the home - without them they wouldn't be the same...likening this to mechanics and symbolism. When it comes to tools, that would be the hammer, the saw, the ruler, the pencil I measured with. They are not part of the content but rather a means to get to the final results...yes?

 

[twelveoone]

I know poetry by a convergence of intention (poet) and recognition (reader). This I call resonance.

The qualities of poetry do not define it, they do not accept or reject anything from its fold. Rather, what is recognized as "poetry" often shares certain traits.

Repetition, sounds, symbols — or the complete lack of them — these are only what the reader makes of them. Everything is a tool toward the purpose of creating poetry; no tool is poetry, in itself. The experience is in the mind, not in the poem.

...that's all I have for now.

Hmmmm all of that and this seems to be where my head goes.

Ash, make the most of it.

 

[oggbashan]

When I build a home I am using wood and glass. To fancy it up and give it atmosphere I use paint and decorations. Those are all part of the home - without them they wouldn't be the same...likening this to mechanics and symbolism. When it comes to tools, that would be the hammer, the saw, the ruler, the pencil I measured with. They are not part of the content but rather a means to get to the final results...yes?

A pile of materials isn't a house, and certainly not a home.

There has to be a plan, a design, even drawings. That is the content to be expressed as a house, using the materials, and the tools to shape the materials to the form of a house.

If I take the analogy further - you can build a house with the heap of materials. You could build any one of a number of designs of house with those materials.

But that house would not be a home, until you make it your own.

Several poems could be created from your initial idea - your design. You can even have a row of identical poems. But only one specific design can be personalised to make it yours, and yours alone - the complete poem.

 

[Epmd607]

I can understand that, but it doesn't change my view that the mechanics and symbolism are part of the delivery system, not the content.
...
If I had used extensive symbolism that is personal to me, or peculiar to the UK, I would be confusing many readers.

Metaphor is a delivery system that is peculiar to regions, languages, cultures. There are some globalized metaphors and international symbols, but for the most part metaphor contains information that is unique to a cultural, literate, religious/mythological, language tradition.

It's certainly not terribly difficult writing a story, setting a scene, building a character that can be understood by non-native speakers of English. You're not utilizing metaphor. It's certainly difficult conveying, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." metaphorized to the Nth degree and spun sideways in a poem to a non-native English speaker. As it's difficult for American English natives following:

"The statue at Tsarskoye Selo".

One day a girl with an urn
Let it drop on the boulder beneath her.
Sadly she sits and alone,
Uselessly holding the pieces.
But see! What marvel is this?
For the water pours yet from her vessel.
There she continues today,
Her gaze on this endless spring.

Pushkin

It follows the same Aarne–Thompson tale type as "don't count your chickens...", it's just encoded differently in Europe, Russia, Far East.

 

[Tsotha]

If I had used extensive symbolism that is personal to me, or peculiar to the UK, I would be confusing many readers.

It's good to feel confused every once in a while.

A poem can have unknown symbols and be very interesting to me if I feel that it is self-contained, presenting all the clues I must have in order to have a fair chance of getting some meaning out of it (not necessarily the meaning, or every meaning; a meaning will suffice).

Actually, I think the above describes many "good" poems I've read. If poem is obvious, it often won't hold my interest. When a poet instead sets me on a wild chase for references, I feel the poem has been maimed. It's not necessarily a "bad" poem, though, just limited in reach.

The poem Epmd607 pasted above refers to a statue in Russia that represents a character in a fable by some frenchman. It requires me to know about the statue, to know that it refers to a fable, and to know what the fable is about. If the poem intended to use the statue as a symbol for something, to develop some idea, then by doing so it has become a limited poem, because the message is conveyed in a way that limits its reach.

(I don't think it is a symbol, by the way. The original by the La Fontaine is, but this statue poem is just a comment on how the character is immortalized in her moment of sadness.)

 

[Epmd607]

...
(I don't think it is a symbol, by the way. The original by the La Fontaine is, but this statue poem is just a comment on how the character is immortalized in her moment of sadness.)

As reader wouldn't you be curious why she is so sad over a broken vessel, why she is worthy of remembrance in form of statue and also poetry?

If the statue was crying over spilt milk we might have a better chance, but even the milkmaid has been bifurcated(so has the local meaning of the statue, apparently.) The people associate her with some fabled milkmaid, while the sculptor had another intention, but I'm not sure which fable the locals are referring to anyway. There's the milkmaid who's uselessly crying, then there's the milkmaid on her way to market calculating her profits when she carelessly spills her milk on the road which we(in North America at least) know better as a man who counts his chickens before they're hatched.

We know Pushkin wrote the poem and a popular song was based on the poem. Was the song made popular without the listeners attributing the fables to it? There's just a great deal of information that is special to cultural groups, that they can refer to this cultural icon, the song and maybe not even refer to any of the fables and still use metaphor in a way I can't access without a long study.

It's not limited work if a metaphor refers to popular information. I can write a limited poem that refers to regional NY Catskill icons: John Burroughs, Slide Mtn, Washington Irving's History of New York characters, Shon-gum prisoners etc. and have it only appeal to people with a peculiar poetic interest in the history and literature of the region. As in, like a dozen people.

 

[bogusagain]

As reader wouldn't you be curious why she is so sad over a broken vessel, why she is worthy of remembrance in form of statue and also poetry?

Depends if the poem grabs you. It's just like a piece of music, if it doesn't move you, you really don't care. A piece of text being labelled a poem or even labelled a good poem, is insufficient if it doesn't cause an emotional or intellectual response in the reader.